Ideas Working Group - Autonomy And Consent 11 April 2012

Discussion Notes

We're meeting in room 400 at the BCNC, and we've pretty much filled out the room. We have a go-round for introductions: name and favorite lethal ice cream.

To an extent, tonight's discussion comes in response to a proposal raised at our April 5th General assembly. As background information, we distribute copies of the April 5 GA minutes. Several people feel that this is the wrong way to frame a discussion on autonomy and consent. There's a short discussion about that GA; we put the minutes away, or use them for scratch paper. We talk about how to conduct the meeting, and try to start again on a different note.

We could frame the control vs. autonomy debate as the community coming together at times, but not always.

On several occasions, I've heard people say that we put too much emphasis on autonomous actions. If someone doesn't like a group decision, they can go off in the opposite direction, and justify this as an autonomous action. That gives people a lot of individual freedom. On the other hand, I've heard a lot of people say that our decision-making processes are too slow and bureaucratic. That goes against autonomy. It seems like we've got these two things (autonomy and consent) that are in conflict with one another. I'm really interested in hearing ideas about how we can deal with this conflict.

If people do something in the name of Occupy Boston, then it becomes an Occupy Boston thing. I'm concerned that people will do radical things, and we'll go down with them; we'll have no way to distance ourselves.

For the MBTA action in particular, it was an occupation that was started by an affinity group. This issue has been a pattern since day one. There have been many tumultuous events around autonomy and transparency.

Examples of autonomous actions that had painful consequences. At Dewey, the queer tent was removed as an autonomous action. Media did a lot of things autonomously, and we had to trust that it was in the best interest of the group. People from spaces said that we didn't need to worry about winterization; that we'd have space. There were lots of autonomous events during the eviction. In December, there was a Metro ad about OB; that was an autonomous action. Tweeting about the sex offender resolution was an autonomous action. We've used autonomy as a justification for having small groups make decisions. Autonomy can't be a justification for everything.

Occupy strives to be anarchist, and we espouse a lot of anarchist philosophy. In intentional anarchist communities, consensus and autonomous action go hand in hand. If two people do an autonomous action, the others will probably back them up. We're much more diverse. Value autonomy -- it's very different than the outside. Being part of this movement allows us to do things with like-minded people. We haven't had big problems with provocateurs. Pre-emptively trying to keep people safe has backfired on us.

We shouldn't frame this debate as a control issue. When you're trying to rebel against authority, commitment gives you freedom. Both sides (autonomy and consent) are really asking for more commitment. As a community, be committed to each other, and be responsible to each other. Trust individuals.

We don't work under a consensus model, and we do have a leadership structure. It would be a really good idea to have a shared values thing. It would be good to bring the focus back to the banks.

We should get back to having more values discussions, and we should do autonomous actions in support of our community. I hope that no one would intentionally do something to hurt the movement. But we're not all liable if people do that.

I like to think that GA is important, and I'd like it to be important; but I feel that a lot of people don't. Some of the issues are structural and interpersonal. Instead of dealing directly with those issues, we create different structures. We have structures that make sense, but with six months of intrapersonal problems underlying them. Our GA doesn't make decisions; working groups do. I'd like to have a way to coordinate the different working groups. I'm not sure how to deal with the money issue. The risk is not decentralization; the risk is splintering. Are we a coordinated organization, or a network of small organizations?

Autonomy and Control are the wrong paradigms. People who do aggressive direct actions are very secretive, and not very public. On the other hand, hot heads may do crazy things. If you replicate chunks of anarchism, don't be surprised if it acts very differently. GA is important, but it tries too hard to avoid conflict.

I stayed out of the last email to avoid arguing points of information. I joined this movement because we were radical and horizontal and transparent.

People would stick with the movement for the greater good. Lately, we see that's not where we are, and we have to get used to it. We're a collaborative of power nodes. We're vertical. I don't want power; I just want a voice. We've made GA a turd, and we don't want to fix it. We're a benign social movement; we're not radical. I'm interested in having us make a difference.

I came to this movement because I wanted to change the outside world. Our only hope is autonomous action. Writing down values might be a good team building exercise. We need to let go of old forms. Practically all of our direct actions have been autonomous actions. Some stuff is systemic. If you don't have a structure, then you get cliques. We have cliques. We're all pretty privileged, and really can't speak for the whole 99%. But we feel the need to act.

We need to hold people accountable when necessary.

It's a contradiction: how do we have both consensus and autonomous action? Affinity groups are key: that's how people organize themselves. Affinity groups are a core part of autonomy. Consensus isn't the best model for doing actions. Autonomy has limitations; erode consensus and you have shadow leadership. We need to figure out how to get the two to work together. GA is for solidarity statements, for getting money, and for coming together.

GA came from Dewey, but things are very different now. We need to give ourselves the freedom to change and innovate. Having GA for 15 hours/week makes it hard to plan actions. To make GA relevant, we have to do things. We should also learn to plan a little by consensus.

Money breeds distrust, and we've all carried this into the movement.

I never went to GAs before February. I like the idea of a face to face community, but I've found GA to be clique-ish. It's hard to balance autonomy and consensus. Different people have different definitions of autonomy. Lack of transparency is a big problem. We want to see new people come in. It would be constructive to have a discussion of those values. GAs are proposal factories, and proposals take a long time to grind through. Not a single person gets paid for what they do here. I think that's really cool.

I remember a particularly "deadly" GA one night at Dewey. Two people got on stack and said it was the best night of their life.

I don't have a particular attachment to consensus, but I am attached to horizontal democracy.

I want to be a movement that works. What can we do that captures the imagination and participation of people? I really want us to find a few things that capture peoples attention, and pursue them. If we're too decentralized, then it's like we don't have this movement. I want us to figure out how we can come together and capture the public's attention. That's the conversation I want to have.

The October arrests were the result of an autonomous action. Also, Boston Magazine named Occupy Boston as the 38th most influential Bostonian of the year.

We're not a unified organization, but we are a community. There's a tension between autonomous action and consent. Autonomous action should not be a way to disregard decisions you do not believe in. We also need to figure out separation of time and space. We're not an NGO. We're all on the same level, and we do have cliques. I don't like it when a person says "I'm not coming because it doesn't work for me, and it doesn't work for me because I don't come."

Some people don't come to GA because they don't feel safe there. Some have used autonomous action inappropriately. We need to hold each other accountable, and accountability is hard work. We don't have values as our guiding light.